and right-wingers have always been typically law-and-order type people who are very supportive of police, border patrol, national defense, etc. so don't pull this 'oh so now you guys want big government' shit.
As far as I know, every time Ive been pulled over Ive been asked for a valid drivers license. That seems like existing statute. When people are arrested for a crime, their records are checked, and if they are not here legally, they are deported. Thats also existing statute. What I dont have to do, is carry around my social security card and birth certificate everywhere I go, for fear of being randomly scooped off the street for unspecified "suspicion" and threatened with deportation. The open ended harassment and intimidation of any and all people who could be vaguely construed as resembling 'immigrants' is not american. Its actually a direct violation of the 14th amendment. Being asked without cause for papers as a matter of intimidation is not american. Thats the behavior of a police state. Notice all the rational republicans running headlong away from you? Thats because this shit is flagrantly unconstitutional and a total violation of everything this country espouses to stand for.
And yes, I find it staggeringly ironic that republicans lose their ever-loving minds when the government does actual rational helpful things, like reducing health care costs or improving education or regulating financial markets, sobbing ahistorically about the constitution all the way, yet out of the other side of their mouths are perfectly willing to encourage the government to engage in unlawful indefinite detainment, torture, and systematic ethnic intimidation, so long of course as the victims of that treatment have skin tones the wrong side of sienna.
FRaC, to go little further with what oe said, can you explain how this law would enhance the police's ability to enforce the law beyond current statutes of police enforcement and criminal prosecution?
It seems to me if the argument is that this will help prosecute drug cartels and human traffickers, wouldn't it already be obvious that these groups of people are involved in criminal activity (they are named after a crime after all), and don't we already have a system in place (search warrants > arrest > deportation) that deals with this, without violating civil liberties?
These are honest questions, and I bring it up because it's a separate issue than dealing with hard-working people who are here illegally. I think this law allows people (and police) to confuse the two, which I think muddles the debate.
"maybe there should just be a way to weed out the illegals who are criminals, which is not all of them.."
There actually is a system in place.
First, the illegal rapes or kills someone you may love.
Second, the illegal runs and hides.
Third, if the perp is known and is entered into the police records, a manhunt may be enacted.
Fourth, when the per is not found, he may later be picked up for speeding and then cross checking will reveal his prior misdeeds.
Fifth, He will go to court and sometimes be convicted.
Sixth, he will go to jail, here in America, at your cost for who knows how long.
Seventh, sometimes upon release, the dept of homeland security may be linked to other systems in our prison systems notifying them of the illegals pending release, and an ICE agent may show up in time to pick him up for deportation hearings and finally deportation.
Eight, when number seven above doesn't happen the illegal is released back into the general population. ICE is notified and now has a record.
Ninth, ICE agents then start to try and track the illegal perp down before he rapes and kills another loved one.
Before anybody here decides that this is not corect information, I will let you know I am relaying this info based on over a decade of personal conversations with law enforcement officials I happen to know. My interpretation above may omit specifics but is fairly accurate in general terms.
An Illegal Alien is an Illegal Alien Regardless of how Human, Loving, Hardworking, etc a person They are....the economy is a mess and anyone who doubts the trickle-up effect of employment opportunities when Illegals are deported is Insane, dumb, stupid or uneducated.
conversely, unchecked immigration also afforded much of the speculative development that paid our salaries over the past several years - they all needed a cheap apartment, those former tenant moved into something else, those former owners moved into something new, etc. etc......So not sure what's going to happen to the demand for housing when a 1-2 million housing units are vacated.
Third-ly: 2007 U.S. Births Break Baby Boom Record
So, with those statistics, the argument for Population replacement via Immigration begins to have holes in it.....
You are more likely to be raped and killed by a family member (or someone else you know) than you are a stranger... or whether that stranger is here illegally or legally.
Nice pathos appeal.
"Before anybody here decides that this is not corect information, I will let you know I am relaying this info based on over a decade of personal conversations with law enforcement officials I happen to know. My interpretation above may omit specifics but is fairly accurate in general terms."
That's like an architect telling you it is necessary to hire an architect to build a garden shed.
Nice (false) inductive reasoning.
The foundation of policing in the United States is relatively shaky at best. Police, for the most part, are ineffective at deterring and preventing crime by themselves.
And police forces, the jail and prison system and by extension the court system are one of the U.S.'s largest wasted expenses in terms of benefits gained for dollars spent.
Read:
John E. Eck, David Weisburd. What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 593, No. 1, 42-65 (2004)
Essentially, modern police tactics work by instilling a sense of fear and avoidance over society. That fear is suppose to be the principal cornerstone that keeps police effective. If people over come this fear, they realize that the police officer is just a man in a uniform with some weapons. If people no longer value their lives, that fear will also disappear as consequence and retribution no longer instill fear (i.e., immigrants, drug addicts, gangbangers).
If you want a working example, the $6-$8 billion dollars spent in Afghanistan on developing modern police forces is not working. That is because the new police forces do not seem legitimate and do not inspire the levels of fear and paranoia needed to make said police force effective.
Since most immigrants are disenfranchised or living in constant states of fear, aggression will probably do more harm than good. This escalation will more than likely lead to more violence. Plus, there will more than likely be an increase in forged documents and stolen identities do to the mandate of having to carry papers.
"The foundation of policing in the United States is relatively shaky at best. Police, for the most part, are ineffective at deterring and preventing crime by themselves."
That is because their job is reactive.
Pre-emptive measures are required for this.
Besides, by crossing the border iwithout authorization or overstaying a visa, means that they are here illegally. Thus the police should be able to, in a reactive manner, arrest them. In order to do this they would need to ask for theor legal right to be in this country.
Are you advocating the police not do their jobs by seeking out and arresting illegals?
Border enforcement on an active level has done absolutely nothing to deter the problems that come with illegal immigration.
This was one of the primary reasons why the European Union exists today. While Europe does have problems with illegal immigration now, Europe had much more severe immigration issues in the past.
Open borders, economic competitiveness and police cooperation were the fundamentals in the European Union's European Community -- one of the three pillars of the European Union-- created by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. This treaty changed the definition of illegal immigration between EU and Non-EU states. The opening up of the borders technically solved more problems and lead to more prosperity than the challenges it created.
If we were to institute a similar problem with Mexico, we would fundamentally eliminate many of the cartels and gangs who make a majority of their money from human trafficking and using trafficked humans to carry drugs.
Other possible solutions:
1) Increase the minimum wages forcing business owners to reevaluate their personnel positions
2) Gentrification and blockbusting-- increase property taxes and eliminate loopholes that allow for slum housing to exist
3) Require farmers to house (through creating applicable HUD programs) migrant workers
4) Require proof of residency to buy, transfer or sell any new or used vehicle
5) Require all owner-based or company-based mobile home and condo financing to be regularly inspected by the SEC frequently
6) Grant temporary amnesty to illegal immigrants for reporting illegal employment and housing practices to appropriate authorities
7) Condemn properties found to be built by illegal labor
... So many opportunities to bottleneck the cycle of legal vs. illegal without touching civil rights and liberties.
"You are more likely to be raped and killed by a family member (or someone else you know) than you are a stranger... or whether that stranger is here illegally or legally.
Nice pathos appeal."
Are you still in college? Sounds like you finally got to your required "logic" class.
So how about this?
Two Wrongs Make A Right argument: a charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that others have sinned, or might have sinned. For example, Bill borrows Jane's expensive pen, and later finds he hasn't returned it. He tells himself that it is okay to keep it, since she would have taken his.
You can not make illegal immigration nor illegal criminal activity ok by changing my argument that some illegals have raped or murdered (or even a less of an offense) into the argument that you can possibly find a bigger demographic such as your relatives being responsible for rape and murder. Not that I am buying your argument. I'm not.
A crime was committed prior to the rape and/or murder. And nothing you can say or do will change that first FACT.
"Border enforcement on an active level has done absolutely nothing to deter the problems that come with illegal immigration."
Firstly, show me the data that allows you to say it has done "absolutely" nothing to deter. I'd love to see it. The term absolute is one of those funny things.
Secondly, we have not enforced our laws regarding our borders to the max. level let a lone to 50% of the max. Our borders are pourous and we have never tried to keep out 100% of illegals nor could we. People over stay visas as well.
You just want to let in anybody who can get here to stay for some odd reason.
Principle of bivalence to ad hominem attack followed by propositional logic. Nice. Going to throw out a splitting logical retort or a Morton's fork next?
Truth is... you are more likely on any given day to find a $100 bill than you are going to be murdered by someone. Unless you're a young black male aged 18-34, the average person is about 1,000 times more likely to die in a vehicular-related incident. Are we going to start heavily regulating the use of automobiles?
The murder rate in this county is less than 11 people per 100,000!
S Jarrell, RM Howsen. Transient crowding and crime: the more 'strangers' in an area, the more crime except for murder, assault and rape. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1990
Buss, David M. The murderer next door: Why the mind is designed to kill. New York, NY, US: Penguin Press. 2005
Foreign individuals, immigrants, tourists, out-of-towners are more than likely going to increase crime but only non-serious crimes.
"You just want to let in anybody who can get here to stay for some odd reason."
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The Emma Lazarus poem is on the inside of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island.
It was originally written to raise money for the construction of the foundation. There's a reason why it is titled "the New Colussus."
Ellis Island was indeed an immigration processing center. Under the previosu and current law, such a facility for processing immigrants would be "illegal." In fact, Ellis Island was rolled back in 1924 after the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed. Only about 2% of the immigrants were denied citizenship.
It was then used as a center to detain nazis, communists and fascists. It was closed in 1952 after changes were made about the detention of suspected communists.
This is primarily the reason as to why immigration sucks (Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act):
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act (43 Statutes-at-Large 153), was a United States federal law that limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It excluded immigration of Asians. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who were immigrating in large numbers starting in the 1890s, as well as prohibiting the immigration of East Asians and Asian Indians.
There had been no limitations on Latin Americans until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236) abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan (known as "the Conscience of the Senate"), and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts - all Democrats.[1]
An annual limitation of 300,000 visas was established for immigrants, including 170,000 from Eastern Hemisphere countries, with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited. While as of 2010[update] there are no quotas for immigrant spouses of US citizens, quotas for other types of relatives of US citizens have since been instituted.
How does mandating someone provide documents, who is considered under the suspicion, preemptively prevent any crime other than the crime of being in this country without documentation? If they are under the suspicion of any other crime e.g. theft, murder, etc. then there is a protocol in place established to deal with it i.e. warrant > arrest > incarceration > deportation, whether this system is flawed or not is another debate, but my point is the premise of this law is entirely illogical, let alone the argument for this law. Therefore, I think it's a moot point to argue that the law allows enhanced policing of other crimes (e.g. drug-smuggling, human-trafficking, and apparently rape as described above) when this law simply enables the witch hunt of illegal immigrants within a specific race, pure and simple.
I think if you are a proponent of this law, you have to at least acknowledge this fact, and not hide behind the right-wing narrative, as much as I have to acknowledge that illegal immigrants are in fact breaking the law. However, I hold that illegal immigration is not the moral equivalent of the heinous crimes that people try to associate with illegal immigrants. In fact, I was an illegal immigrant in Europe for a short while after my visa expired, does that mean I should automatically be associated with human-traffickers and rapists?
I am not blind to the fact that people guilty of violent crimes along the border are primarily of a certain race, but I fervently argue that the law should be blind to this fact, otherwise, the system will be even further flawed.
In sum, all this law does is put people of a specific race, "under the suspicion" without any probable cause other than the color of their skin, and referring back to the video i shared about discrimination, this law is far more effective at highlighting societal flaws than it is at preventing crime.
If this law was enacted in montana you wouldn't say word one about race. It just happens it was enacted in Arizona. The majority of illegals crossing this border happen to be non canadians. But that doesn't mean that if the police suspect a person, pulled over for speeding, is here illegally from canada, he shouldn't ask for proper id.
Ok, heres thought experiment. Lets say the federal government passed a law raising the legal immigration cap to match the average rate of total legal and non-legal immigration. Illegal immigrants are then required to pay back-taxes and fines equal to the cost of emergency healthcare and other state expenses linked to the existing illegal immigrant population. Complimentary to that, they increased enforcement of social security and green-card checks for all payroll expenditures to put a bottom under the minimum wage and devote the entirety of the US border patrol service to target the drug trade and counter terrorism.
Would that make you happy? People have paid back for the cost of their crimes, taxpayers are no longer bearing their costs, weve probably quadrupled boots on the ground against the drug-trade. Those are good things, right? Increased productivity in the economy, lower labor costs to fuel growth. People are measured, equally, by the level of effort and qualification they can bring to find jobs. Thats the free market at work, right? All thats changed is there are a lot more brown people in the southwest.
I quite suspect if that were done, despite all the positive things it would do, southern conservatives would all but threaten a civil war. I should think it would be important for people to search themselves why that really is.
Can't speak for southern conservatives. I come from the midwest where a LOT of our illegals are from the eastern portion of europe. I would love to deport these people at the same level I would any illegal in Arizona based solely on the fact they are here for overstaying their visa or crossing a border. I don't care what color they are. A law is in place, it is broken, and we need to deport them to the best of our ability.
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now
has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per
year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL
program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
LOL, immigrants are not able to receive state benefits in California. Try again.
Also, you could play out this scenario for more legal citizens who make a majority of their money through cash tips (bartenders, servers, attendents, porters, handlers, doormen, valets, baristas, hairdressers, deliverymen et cetera).
In fact, states like Texas, Florida and California are driven by service-based economies where tipping (illegal income) makes up a majority of wages.
"You can apply for and get food stamp benefits for eligible family members, even if your family includes other members who are not eligible because of immigration status. For example, immigrant parents may apply for food stamp benefits for their U.S. citizen or qualified immigrant children, even though the parents may not be eligible for benefits."
Food stamps, emergency care and other welfare programs will only cover illegal immigrants if said illegal immigrants are related to legal immigrants-- i.e., an illegal only qualifies if their child or caretaker is a legal citizen. If it is a child, illegals can stay in this country legally until the child is 18 or no longer dependent.
If anyone in the household is elderly or disabled, there is no limit to income.
In your example, neither Jose or Joe qualified for any sort of welfare because both are far beyond having both a gross and a net income greater than 165% of the poverty line ($30,500).
The Housing Assistance program in California offers most of its aid in obtaining homeownership for the low-to-moderate income bracket. However, illegal immigrants do not qualify for this program.
"Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay."
Both, in your scenario, would be paying some variety of real estate tax through renting or owning. They would both be technically paying for the services!
Also, about 40%-60% of the illegal immigrants in this country are, in fact, filing federal income taxes. And illegals are paying into a system that they more than likely will not receive any benefit from.
The IRS even has anonymous "illegal income" forms for gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious individuals to file if they want to avoid going to prison for tax evasion!
The New American Border
A LEED Silver border fence for the future.
Features:
This electrified border fence will run along a near continuous line of solar panels producing 2.5 times the amount of electricity consumed. The fence can act as a secondary transmission line ensuring service in a catastrophic event.
The border fence will be outfitted with monitors that will gauge fluctuations in voltage. Attempts at crossing the fence will alert the sentry towers.
The sentry towers are unmanned and zero waste. Once a breach in the fence has been detected, their automated systems being looking for illegal immigrants.
The sentry towers use a combination of sonic pulses and low-level laser lights to cause the illegal immigrants to become temporarily blind and dehydrated (from vomit). Incapacitated individuals will be easier to handle with and more cooperative given their near death states.
The fence itself is designed actually a dual layer fence. The lower fence is a combination of locally sourced limestone and concrete. It is outfitted with hundreds of metal bladed studs. The upper fence is the electrified version relying on a lower densely bundled wire matrix with a lighter less-densely bundled matrix.
Due to changes in geography from shifting sands and floods, the fence meets appropriate site contexts due to the nature of the construction. At a total of 32 ft high, this fence can handle a manageable amount of shifting desert sands.
The above link is to an August 2004 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, by Steven A. Camarota, entitled "The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget."
Camarota finds that while over half of undocumented immigrants contribute to the federal budget in the form of payroll taxes (creating a benefit for Social Security and Medicare programs of $7 billion annually), the costs of undocumented immigrants to the federal government exceeded their contributions by approximately $10.4 billion. Among the largest costs include Medicaid use, treatment for the uninsured, and participation in food assistance programs.
I think that we need to find a rational solution to this dilemma... but pretending that there aren't big costs associated with illegal immigration is akin to sticking one's head in the sand.
This all will be a moot point unless employment growth picks up. Last year, for the first time ever, remittances TO Mexican illegals living in the US exceeded remittances FROM Mexican illegals living in the US. In other words, instead of these people sending savings home to their families in Mexico their families had to send them money to keep them from starving in America. Illegal immigration is only an issue if there are jobs.
I hear the hot border these days is the end of the Route 58 corridor in China, where border control agents try to catch and send home illegal migrants from the Mekong countries. There was a massive immigration raid last month on Guangzhou's Little Africa.
This all will be a moot point unless employment growth picks up. Last year, for the first time ever, remittances TO Mexican illegals living in the US exceeded remittances FROM Mexican illegals living in the US. In other words, instead of these people sending savings home to their families in Mexico their families had to send them money to keep them from starving in America. Illegal immigration is only an issue if there are jobs.
I hear the hot border these days is the end of the Route 58 corridor in China, where border control agents try to catch and send home illegal migrants from the Mekong countries. There was a massive immigration raid last month on Guangzhou's Little Africa.
Camarota finds that while over half of undocumented immigrants contribute to the federal budget in the form of payroll taxes (creating a benefit for Social Security and Medicare programs of $7 billion annually), the costs of undocumented immigrants to the federal government exceeded their contributions by approximately $10.4 billion. Among the largest costs include Medicaid use, treatment for the uninsured, and participation in food assistance programs.
Well, given that we have a federal deficit of 1.3 trillion, and they make up 5% of the population, that kind of puts them doing better than the rest of us, eh?
Every time I hear this argument, I think, "Boy! These people are costing us a lot of money! Lets spend 50 billion dollars on border security and enforcement to solve a 10 billion dollar problem!" Youd think, I dont know, maybe we should encourage them to pay full taxes? Pay into healthcare plans and yearly checkups so we dont have to spend 5 dollars on the dollar when they show up in the emergency room anyway? But no. Of course not. That wouldnt solve the real problem, would it?
I believe any law that encourages racial profiling is potentially destructive. I'm fine with catching and deporting illegals, but if the means to do so involves subjecting people of certain appearances or ethinicities to greater scrutiny, then I think it fair to question whether this is something we should be doing.
If you want to crack down on illegal immigration, focus on improving the monitoring of people with expired visas and the like, not by asking beat cops to cast some type of broad net on groups that just might have higher rates of immigration violations among their members. More people overstay and work illegally than sneak in over the desert and work illegally, from what I understand.
So look. Im gonna try real hard to cast the smallest net I can manage. I dont think all republicans are bad people. Theres some stuff about the limited roll of government and individual responsibility I think is great and a hugely important counterbalance. I dont want to live in china. I want people offering new ideas and challenging eachother.
But the people pushing this shit in Arizona, and frankly anyone who supports them, are fucking morally bankrupt human beings. How in fucks sake can anyone in this country after all our history stand by this now and not feel personally shamed? This isnt 1890s deep south. This isnt 1930s germany. This is 2010 in the supposed freest country on earth. And you fucking assholes have now openly decided its the central policy of an entire state to deliberately and systematically declare to an ethnic group that they are no longer welcome. Well yknow what? How about you fucks neither understand nor deserve the freedoms you enjoy. YOU are unamerican. You are spoiled, delusional, ignorant fuckwits. No teaching for people with accents? Why didnt we think of it before?? Hope you like working in the back of a bakery mr. Einstein! You clearly dont have the skills to communicate effectively! And if were going to scrub all ethnic studies,. why not just go all the way? Lets just scrub all the not-white people out of the history books entirely! We can just march around mainstreet in hoods and dixie flags and celebrate the pure and glorious victory of the Confederate States of America!
In all seriousness, if you grew up in this country, with all the opportunities and privileges citizenship affords you, and you cant compete with some poor bastard who cant speak the language and wandered out of the desert with barely the shirt hanging off his back, then guess what, you are fucking worthless. I have zero sympathy for you. Not only do you deserve for your wages to be driven down, we should probably be paying you less than he, because youre obviously lazy and incompetent to boot.
In the end, I just really want to know--what ever happened to the non-cowards? Where are the republicans who are normal fucking human beings who will finally stand up and say this has gone far enough? Certainly not the national republican leadership. Not our morally-desiccated old bonebag John McCain. I just sincerely want to know at what point someone finally has the basic human decency to step forward and acknowledge that this is not what america is about, that this shit has become fucking indefensible.
“Los Angeles the second-largest city in this country, an immigrant city, an international city. It needs to have its voice heard,’’ Councilman Ed Reyes said, the Los Angeles Times reported. “As an American, I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport. If I come across an officer who’s having a bad day and feels that the picture on my ID is not me, I can be … deported, no questions asked. That is not American.’’
yes, as an american you can go to arizona without a passport.
if the officer thinks you have a fake i.d. a quick check on the computer (you know, using that system of tubes) will clear up that suspicion.
no, you will not be 'deported, no questions asked.'. if you're a u.s. citizen or legal immigrant (green card, current visa, etc.) you will not be deported 'no questions asked'. if you're here illegally, the local cops turn you over to the feds who deport you after asking lots of questions.
l.a. city council are fucking idiots ('cept for that 1 person who voted against this ridiculous boycott).
no, you will not be 'deported, no questions asked.'. if you're a u.s. citizen or legal immigrant (green card, current visa, etc.) you will not be deported 'no questions asked'. if you're here illegally, the local cops turn you over to the feds who deport you after asking lots of questions.
Sounds like a ball! Who needs a bill of rights when I can spend an unplanned weeklong vacay in a jailcell being interrogated by the feds to prove my innocence because some streetcop found me suspiciously dusky for that neighborhood?
Sounds like a ball! Who needs a bill of rights when I can spend an unplanned weeklong vacay in a jailcell being interrogated by the feds to prove my innocence because some streetcop found me suspiciously dusky for that neighborhood?
it won't take a week, oe, it'll be about 2 seconds to verify if your driver's license or green card is legit
"AZ Immigration Law"/SB 1070 - Your Thoughts?
oe, enforcing federal law does not make us a police state (or ... the soviet union). use yer head, man!
and right-wingers have always been typically law-and-order type people who are very supportive of police, border patrol, national defense, etc. so don't pull this 'oh so now you guys want big government' shit.
As far as I know, every time Ive been pulled over Ive been asked for a valid drivers license. That seems like existing statute. When people are arrested for a crime, their records are checked, and if they are not here legally, they are deported. Thats also existing statute. What I dont have to do, is carry around my social security card and birth certificate everywhere I go, for fear of being randomly scooped off the street for unspecified "suspicion" and threatened with deportation. The open ended harassment and intimidation of any and all people who could be vaguely construed as resembling 'immigrants' is not american. Its actually a direct violation of the 14th amendment. Being asked without cause for papers as a matter of intimidation is not american. Thats the behavior of a police state. Notice all the rational republicans running headlong away from you? Thats because this shit is flagrantly unconstitutional and a total violation of everything this country espouses to stand for.
And yes, I find it staggeringly ironic that republicans lose their ever-loving minds when the government does actual rational helpful things, like reducing health care costs or improving education or regulating financial markets, sobbing ahistorically about the constitution all the way, yet out of the other side of their mouths are perfectly willing to encourage the government to engage in unlawful indefinite detainment, torture, and systematic ethnic intimidation, so long of course as the victims of that treatment have skin tones the wrong side of sienna.
FRaC, to go little further with what oe said, can you explain how this law would enhance the police's ability to enforce the law beyond current statutes of police enforcement and criminal prosecution?
It seems to me if the argument is that this will help prosecute drug cartels and human traffickers, wouldn't it already be obvious that these groups of people are involved in criminal activity (they are named after a crime after all), and don't we already have a system in place (search warrants > arrest > deportation) that deals with this, without violating civil liberties?
These are honest questions, and I bring it up because it's a separate issue than dealing with hard-working people who are here illegally. I think this law allows people (and police) to confuse the two, which I think muddles the debate.
and to those of you who think profiling is a harmless thing, you need to watch this.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
proof that depriving someone's dignity goes a long way.
Dot, that was quite interesting.
Thank for good topic.
"maybe there should just be a way to weed out the illegals who are criminals, which is not all of them.."
There actually is a system in place.
First, the illegal rapes or kills someone you may love.
Second, the illegal runs and hides.
Third, if the perp is known and is entered into the police records, a manhunt may be enacted.
Fourth, when the per is not found, he may later be picked up for speeding and then cross checking will reveal his prior misdeeds.
Fifth, He will go to court and sometimes be convicted.
Sixth, he will go to jail, here in America, at your cost for who knows how long.
Seventh, sometimes upon release, the dept of homeland security may be linked to other systems in our prison systems notifying them of the illegals pending release, and an ICE agent may show up in time to pick him up for deportation hearings and finally deportation.
Eight, when number seven above doesn't happen the illegal is released back into the general population. ICE is notified and now has a record.
Ninth, ICE agents then start to try and track the illegal perp down before he rapes and kills another loved one.
Before anybody here decides that this is not corect information, I will let you know I am relaying this info based on over a decade of personal conversations with law enforcement officials I happen to know. My interpretation above may omit specifics but is fairly accurate in general terms.
An Illegal Alien is an Illegal Alien Regardless of how Human, Loving, Hardworking, etc a person They are....the economy is a mess and anyone who doubts the trickle-up effect of employment opportunities when Illegals are deported is Insane, dumb, stupid or uneducated.
conversely, unchecked immigration also afforded much of the speculative development that paid our salaries over the past several years - they all needed a cheap apartment, those former tenant moved into something else, those former owners moved into something new, etc. etc......So not sure what's going to happen to the demand for housing when a 1-2 million housing units are vacated.
Third-ly: 2007 U.S. Births Break Baby Boom Record
So, with those statistics, the argument for Population replacement via Immigration begins to have holes in it.....
You are more likely to be raped and killed by a family member (or someone else you know) than you are a stranger... or whether that stranger is here illegally or legally.
Nice pathos appeal.
"Before anybody here decides that this is not corect information, I will let you know I am relaying this info based on over a decade of personal conversations with law enforcement officials I happen to know. My interpretation above may omit specifics but is fairly accurate in general terms."
That's like an architect telling you it is necessary to hire an architect to build a garden shed.
Nice (false) inductive reasoning.
The foundation of policing in the United States is relatively shaky at best. Police, for the most part, are ineffective at deterring and preventing crime by themselves.
And police forces, the jail and prison system and by extension the court system are one of the U.S.'s largest wasted expenses in terms of benefits gained for dollars spent.
Read:
John E. Eck, David Weisburd. What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 593, No. 1, 42-65 (2004)
Essentially, modern police tactics work by instilling a sense of fear and avoidance over society. That fear is suppose to be the principal cornerstone that keeps police effective. If people over come this fear, they realize that the police officer is just a man in a uniform with some weapons. If people no longer value their lives, that fear will also disappear as consequence and retribution no longer instill fear (i.e., immigrants, drug addicts, gangbangers).
If you want a working example, the $6-$8 billion dollars spent in Afghanistan on developing modern police forces is not working. That is because the new police forces do not seem legitimate and do not inspire the levels of fear and paranoia needed to make said police force effective.
Since most immigrants are disenfranchised or living in constant states of fear, aggression will probably do more harm than good. This escalation will more than likely lead to more violence. Plus, there will more than likely be an increase in forged documents and stolen identities do to the mandate of having to carry papers.
"The foundation of policing in the United States is relatively shaky at best. Police, for the most part, are ineffective at deterring and preventing crime by themselves."
That is because their job is reactive.
Pre-emptive measures are required for this.
Besides, by crossing the border iwithout authorization or overstaying a visa, means that they are here illegally. Thus the police should be able to, in a reactive manner, arrest them. In order to do this they would need to ask for theor legal right to be in this country.
Are you advocating the police not do their jobs by seeking out and arresting illegals?
Yes, I am.
Border enforcement on an active level has done absolutely nothing to deter the problems that come with illegal immigration.
This was one of the primary reasons why the European Union exists today. While Europe does have problems with illegal immigration now, Europe had much more severe immigration issues in the past.
Open borders, economic competitiveness and police cooperation were the fundamentals in the European Union's European Community -- one of the three pillars of the European Union-- created by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. This treaty changed the definition of illegal immigration between EU and Non-EU states. The opening up of the borders technically solved more problems and lead to more prosperity than the challenges it created.
If we were to institute a similar problem with Mexico, we would fundamentally eliminate many of the cartels and gangs who make a majority of their money from human trafficking and using trafficked humans to carry drugs.
Other possible solutions:
1) Increase the minimum wages forcing business owners to reevaluate their personnel positions
2) Gentrification and blockbusting-- increase property taxes and eliminate loopholes that allow for slum housing to exist
3) Require farmers to house (through creating applicable HUD programs) migrant workers
4) Require proof of residency to buy, transfer or sell any new or used vehicle
5) Require all owner-based or company-based mobile home and condo financing to be regularly inspected by the SEC frequently
6) Grant temporary amnesty to illegal immigrants for reporting illegal employment and housing practices to appropriate authorities
7) Condemn properties found to be built by illegal labor
... So many opportunities to bottleneck the cycle of legal vs. illegal without touching civil rights and liberties.
"You are more likely to be raped and killed by a family member (or someone else you know) than you are a stranger... or whether that stranger is here illegally or legally.
Nice pathos appeal."
Are you still in college? Sounds like you finally got to your required "logic" class.
So how about this?
Two Wrongs Make A Right argument: a charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that others have sinned, or might have sinned. For example, Bill borrows Jane's expensive pen, and later finds he hasn't returned it. He tells himself that it is okay to keep it, since she would have taken his.
You can not make illegal immigration nor illegal criminal activity ok by changing my argument that some illegals have raped or murdered (or even a less of an offense) into the argument that you can possibly find a bigger demographic such as your relatives being responsible for rape and murder. Not that I am buying your argument. I'm not.
A crime was committed prior to the rape and/or murder. And nothing you can say or do will change that first FACT.
"Border enforcement on an active level has done absolutely nothing to deter the problems that come with illegal immigration."
Firstly, show me the data that allows you to say it has done "absolutely" nothing to deter. I'd love to see it. The term absolute is one of those funny things.
Secondly, we have not enforced our laws regarding our borders to the max. level let a lone to 50% of the max. Our borders are pourous and we have never tried to keep out 100% of illegals nor could we. People over stay visas as well.
You just want to let in anybody who can get here to stay for some odd reason.
Principle of bivalence to ad hominem attack followed by propositional logic. Nice. Going to throw out a splitting logical retort or a Morton's fork next?
Truth is... you are more likely on any given day to find a $100 bill than you are going to be murdered by someone. Unless you're a young black male aged 18-34, the average person is about 1,000 times more likely to die in a vehicular-related incident. Are we going to start heavily regulating the use of automobiles?
The murder rate in this county is less than 11 people per 100,000!
S Jarrell, RM Howsen. Transient crowding and crime: the more 'strangers' in an area, the more crime except for murder, assault and rape. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1990
Buss, David M. The murderer next door: Why the mind is designed to kill. New York, NY, US: Penguin Press. 2005
Foreign individuals, immigrants, tourists, out-of-towners are more than likely going to increase crime but only non-serious crimes.
"You just want to let in anybody who can get here to stay for some odd reason."
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
that's right, here's the big ol' golden door. please knock before you enter!
and did you just call illegal aliens 'wretched refuse'?
omg you racist!
Very nice Prose.
Has that been enacted into law yet?
@Unicorns Laughter:
The Emma Lazarus Poem is Written in English, at Ellis Island where people arrived on boats, from Europe....
and waited to be processed and documented and some were even turned back.
The Emma Lazarus poem is on the inside of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island.
It was originally written to raise money for the construction of the foundation. There's a reason why it is titled "the New Colussus."
Ellis Island was indeed an immigration processing center. Under the previosu and current law, such a facility for processing immigrants would be "illegal." In fact, Ellis Island was rolled back in 1924 after the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed. Only about 2% of the immigrants were denied citizenship.
It was then used as a center to detain nazis, communists and fascists. It was closed in 1952 after changes were made about the detention of suspected communists.
This is primarily the reason as to why immigration sucks (Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act):
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act (43 Statutes-at-Large 153), was a United States federal law that limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It excluded immigration of Asians. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who were immigrating in large numbers starting in the 1890s, as well as prohibiting the immigration of East Asians and Asian Indians.
There had been no limitations on Latin Americans until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236) abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan (known as "the Conscience of the Senate"), and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts - all Democrats.[1]
An annual limitation of 300,000 visas was established for immigrants, including 170,000 from Eastern Hemisphere countries, with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited. While as of 2010[update] there are no quotas for immigrant spouses of US citizens, quotas for other types of relatives of US citizens have since been instituted.
Good God! Could you people even pass a U.S. history test?!
How does mandating someone provide documents, who is considered under the suspicion, preemptively prevent any crime other than the crime of being in this country without documentation? If they are under the suspicion of any other crime e.g. theft, murder, etc. then there is a protocol in place established to deal with it i.e. warrant > arrest > incarceration > deportation, whether this system is flawed or not is another debate, but my point is the premise of this law is entirely illogical, let alone the argument for this law. Therefore, I think it's a moot point to argue that the law allows enhanced policing of other crimes (e.g. drug-smuggling, human-trafficking, and apparently rape as described above) when this law simply enables the witch hunt of illegal immigrants within a specific race, pure and simple.
I think if you are a proponent of this law, you have to at least acknowledge this fact, and not hide behind the right-wing narrative, as much as I have to acknowledge that illegal immigrants are in fact breaking the law. However, I hold that illegal immigration is not the moral equivalent of the heinous crimes that people try to associate with illegal immigrants. In fact, I was an illegal immigrant in Europe for a short while after my visa expired, does that mean I should automatically be associated with human-traffickers and rapists?
I am not blind to the fact that people guilty of violent crimes along the border are primarily of a certain race, but I fervently argue that the law should be blind to this fact, otherwise, the system will be even further flawed.
In sum, all this law does is put people of a specific race, "under the suspicion" without any probable cause other than the color of their skin, and referring back to the video i shared about discrimination, this law is far more effective at highlighting societal flaws than it is at preventing crime.
If this law was enacted in montana you wouldn't say word one about race. It just happens it was enacted in Arizona. The majority of illegals crossing this border happen to be non canadians. But that doesn't mean that if the police suspect a person, pulled over for speeding, is here illegally from canada, he shouldn't ask for proper id.
Ok, heres thought experiment. Lets say the federal government passed a law raising the legal immigration cap to match the average rate of total legal and non-legal immigration. Illegal immigrants are then required to pay back-taxes and fines equal to the cost of emergency healthcare and other state expenses linked to the existing illegal immigrant population. Complimentary to that, they increased enforcement of social security and green-card checks for all payroll expenditures to put a bottom under the minimum wage and devote the entirety of the US border patrol service to target the drug trade and counter terrorism.
Would that make you happy? People have paid back for the cost of their crimes, taxpayers are no longer bearing their costs, weve probably quadrupled boots on the ground against the drug-trade. Those are good things, right? Increased productivity in the economy, lower labor costs to fuel growth. People are measured, equally, by the level of effort and qualification they can bring to find jobs. Thats the free market at work, right? All thats changed is there are a lot more brown people in the southwest.
I quite suspect if that were done, despite all the positive things it would do, southern conservatives would all but threaten a civil war. I should think it would be important for people to search themselves why that really is.
Can't speak for southern conservatives. I come from the midwest where a LOT of our illegals are from the eastern portion of europe. I would love to deport these people at the same level I would any illegal in Arizona based solely on the fact they are here for overstaying their visa or crossing a border. I don't care what color they are. A law is in place, it is broken, and we need to deport them to the best of our ability.
JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has
$31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now
has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per
year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL
program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now?
LOL, immigrants are not able to receive state benefits in California. Try again.
Also, you could play out this scenario for more legal citizens who make a majority of their money through cash tips (bartenders, servers, attendents, porters, handlers, doormen, valets, baristas, hairdressers, deliverymen et cetera).
In fact, states like Texas, Florida and California are driven by service-based economies where tipping (illegal income) makes up a majority of wages.
"You can apply for and get food stamp benefits for eligible family members, even if your family includes other members who are not eligible because of immigration status. For example, immigrant parents may apply for food stamp benefits for their U.S. citizen or qualified immigrant children, even though the parents may not be eligible for benefits."
Food stamps, emergency care and other welfare programs will only cover illegal immigrants if said illegal immigrants are related to legal immigrants-- i.e., an illegal only qualifies if their child or caretaker is a legal citizen. If it is a child, illegals can stay in this country legally until the child is 18 or no longer dependent.
If anyone in the household is elderly or disabled, there is no limit to income.
In your example, neither Jose or Joe qualified for any sort of welfare because both are far beyond having both a gross and a net income greater than 165% of the poverty line ($30,500).
The Housing Assistance program in California offers most of its aid in obtaining homeownership for the low-to-moderate income bracket. However, illegal immigrants do not qualify for this program.
"Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay."
Both, in your scenario, would be paying some variety of real estate tax through renting or owning. They would both be technically paying for the services!
Also, about 40%-60% of the illegal immigrants in this country are, in fact, filing federal income taxes. And illegals are paying into a system that they more than likely will not receive any benefit from.
The IRS even has anonymous "illegal income" forms for gangsters, drug dealers and other nefarious individuals to file if they want to avoid going to prison for tax evasion!
The New American Border
A LEED Silver border fence for the future.
Features:
This electrified border fence will run along a near continuous line of solar panels producing 2.5 times the amount of electricity consumed. The fence can act as a secondary transmission line ensuring service in a catastrophic event.
The border fence will be outfitted with monitors that will gauge fluctuations in voltage. Attempts at crossing the fence will alert the sentry towers.
The sentry towers are unmanned and zero waste. Once a breach in the fence has been detected, their automated systems being looking for illegal immigrants.
The sentry towers use a combination of sonic pulses and low-level laser lights to cause the illegal immigrants to become temporarily blind and dehydrated (from vomit). Incapacitated individuals will be easier to handle with and more cooperative given their near death states.
The fence itself is designed actually a dual layer fence. The lower fence is a combination of locally sourced limestone and concrete. It is outfitted with hundreds of metal bladed studs. The upper fence is the electrified version relying on a lower densely bundled wire matrix with a lighter less-densely bundled matrix.
Due to changes in geography from shifting sands and floods, the fence meets appropriate site contexts due to the nature of the construction. At a total of 32 ft high, this fence can handle a manageable amount of shifting desert sands.
The above link is to an August 2004 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, by Steven A. Camarota, entitled "The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget."
Camarota finds that while over half of undocumented immigrants contribute to the federal budget in the form of payroll taxes (creating a benefit for Social Security and Medicare programs of $7 billion annually), the costs of undocumented immigrants to the federal government exceeded their contributions by approximately $10.4 billion. Among the largest costs include Medicaid use, treatment for the uninsured, and participation in food assistance programs.
I think that we need to find a rational solution to this dilemma... but pretending that there aren't big costs associated with illegal immigration is akin to sticking one's head in the sand.
This all will be a moot point unless employment growth picks up. Last year, for the first time ever, remittances TO Mexican illegals living in the US exceeded remittances FROM Mexican illegals living in the US. In other words, instead of these people sending savings home to their families in Mexico their families had to send them money to keep them from starving in America. Illegal immigration is only an issue if there are jobs.
I hear the hot border these days is the end of the Route 58 corridor in China, where border control agents try to catch and send home illegal migrants from the Mekong countries. There was a massive immigration raid last month on Guangzhou's Little Africa.
We live in interesting times.
This all will be a moot point unless employment growth picks up. Last year, for the first time ever, remittances TO Mexican illegals living in the US exceeded remittances FROM Mexican illegals living in the US. In other words, instead of these people sending savings home to their families in Mexico their families had to send them money to keep them from starving in America. Illegal immigration is only an issue if there are jobs.
I hear the hot border these days is the end of the Route 58 corridor in China, where border control agents try to catch and send home illegal migrants from the Mekong countries. There was a massive immigration raid last month on Guangzhou's Little Africa.
We live in interesting times.
^Horrendous.
Camarota finds that while over half of undocumented immigrants contribute to the federal budget in the form of payroll taxes (creating a benefit for Social Security and Medicare programs of $7 billion annually), the costs of undocumented immigrants to the federal government exceeded their contributions by approximately $10.4 billion. Among the largest costs include Medicaid use, treatment for the uninsured, and participation in food assistance programs.
Well, given that we have a federal deficit of 1.3 trillion, and they make up 5% of the population, that kind of puts them doing better than the rest of us, eh?
Every time I hear this argument, I think, "Boy! These people are costing us a lot of money! Lets spend 50 billion dollars on border security and enforcement to solve a 10 billion dollar problem!" Youd think, I dont know, maybe we should encourage them to pay full taxes? Pay into healthcare plans and yearly checkups so we dont have to spend 5 dollars on the dollar when they show up in the emergency room anyway? But no. Of course not. That wouldnt solve the real problem, would it?
Oh well. I tried being funny.
A LEED Silver electrified border fence? I spent like 35 minutes modeling that!
it was the inexplicable vomit part that gave you away, unicorn.
nice rocks, though.
Love that border fence. Made me laugh. hahaha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9coxGJNjZI
Mexican Americans have been deported in the past.
Most people don't know about this episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9coxGJNjZI
I believe any law that encourages racial profiling is potentially destructive. I'm fine with catching and deporting illegals, but if the means to do so involves subjecting people of certain appearances or ethinicities to greater scrutiny, then I think it fair to question whether this is something we should be doing.
If you want to crack down on illegal immigration, focus on improving the monitoring of people with expired visas and the like, not by asking beat cops to cast some type of broad net on groups that just might have higher rates of immigration violations among their members. More people overstay and work illegally than sneak in over the desert and work illegally, from what I understand.
The City of Los Angeles votes to impose economic sanctions on Arizona:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37113818/ns/us_news-life/
LA will cancel millions in contracts with entities in Arizona.
So look. Im gonna try real hard to cast the smallest net I can manage. I dont think all republicans are bad people. Theres some stuff about the limited roll of government and individual responsibility I think is great and a hugely important counterbalance. I dont want to live in china. I want people offering new ideas and challenging eachother.
But the people pushing this shit in Arizona, and frankly anyone who supports them, are fucking morally bankrupt human beings. How in fucks sake can anyone in this country after all our history stand by this now and not feel personally shamed? This isnt 1890s deep south. This isnt 1930s germany. This is 2010 in the supposed freest country on earth. And you fucking assholes have now openly decided its the central policy of an entire state to deliberately and systematically declare to an ethnic group that they are no longer welcome. Well yknow what? How about you fucks neither understand nor deserve the freedoms you enjoy. YOU are unamerican. You are spoiled, delusional, ignorant fuckwits. No teaching for people with accents? Why didnt we think of it before?? Hope you like working in the back of a bakery mr. Einstein! You clearly dont have the skills to communicate effectively! And if were going to scrub all ethnic studies,. why not just go all the way? Lets just scrub all the not-white people out of the history books entirely! We can just march around mainstreet in hoods and dixie flags and celebrate the pure and glorious victory of the Confederate States of America!
In all seriousness, if you grew up in this country, with all the opportunities and privileges citizenship affords you, and you cant compete with some poor bastard who cant speak the language and wandered out of the desert with barely the shirt hanging off his back, then guess what, you are fucking worthless. I have zero sympathy for you. Not only do you deserve for your wages to be driven down, we should probably be paying you less than he, because youre obviously lazy and incompetent to boot.
In the end, I just really want to know--what ever happened to the non-cowards? Where are the republicans who are normal fucking human beings who will finally stand up and say this has gone far enough? Certainly not the national republican leadership. Not our morally-desiccated old bonebag John McCain. I just sincerely want to know at what point someone finally has the basic human decency to step forward and acknowledge that this is not what america is about, that this shit has become fucking indefensible.
yes, as an american you can go to arizona without a passport.
if the officer thinks you have a fake i.d. a quick check on the computer (you know, using that system of tubes) will clear up that suspicion.
no, you will not be 'deported, no questions asked.'. if you're a u.s. citizen or legal immigrant (green card, current visa, etc.) you will not be deported 'no questions asked'. if you're here illegally, the local cops turn you over to the feds who deport you after asking lots of questions.
l.a. city council are fucking idiots ('cept for that 1 person who voted against this ridiculous boycott).
Sounds like a ball! Who needs a bill of rights when I can spend an unplanned weeklong vacay in a jailcell being interrogated by the feds to prove my innocence because some streetcop found me suspiciously dusky for that neighborhood?
it won't take a week, oe, it'll be about 2 seconds to verify if your driver's license or green card is legit
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.